BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
FA 588 of 2013 against CC 51/2013, Dist. Forum, Srikakulam
Between:
1) The Andhra Pradesh Rajiv Swagruha
Corporation Limited
Rep. by its Managing Director
Plot No. A6, 1st Floor
Sahabhavana Township
Nagole, Bandlaguda
Hyderabad.
2) The General Manager (P)
Anamitra Project
The Andhra Pradesh Rajiv Swagruha
Corporation Limited.
S.No. 112, SM Puram Village
Etcherla Mandal
Srikakulam Dist. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
And
1) Seela Krishna Rao
S/o. Late Thavudu
Retd. Employee
D.No. 3-2-23, Illisipuram
Near Rythu Bazar
Srikakulam Town & Dist.
2) Madugula Kanta Rao
S/o. Late Tarini Babu
Telugu Pandit
Allinagaram (V)
Murapaka S.O.
Srikakulam Dist.
3) Boddepalli Prakasa Rao
S/o. Krishna Rao
9-1-139,
Chandrayyapeta Street
Amadalavalasa Mandal
Srikakulam Dist.
4) Dabbiru Rama Devi
W/o. Raghupatruni Ramesh
Clerk, R/o. 2-18-26
Near Ram Mandir
Rella Street,
Srikakulam Town & Dist.
5) Kinjarapu Chinnavadu
S/o. Late Ugadhi
Health Dept. Employee
Santhabommali (V&M)
Srikakulam Dist.
6) Dabburu Suresh Kumar
S/o. John, School Assistant
R/o. 258, MIG,
Opp: Zilla Parishad
Srikakulam Town & Dist.
*** Respondents/
Complainants
FA 790 of 2013 against CC 35/2013, Dist. Forum, Srikakulam
Between:
1) The Andhra Pradesh Rajiv Swagruha
Corporation Limited
Rep. by its Managing Director
Plot No. A6, 1st Floor
Sahabhavana Township
Nagole, Bandlaguda
Hyderabad.
2) The General Manager (P)
Anamitra Project
The Andhra Pradesh Rajiv Swagruha
Corporation Limited.
S.No. 112, SM Puram Village
Etcherla Mandal
Srikakulam Dist. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
And
Medapalli Venkata Seshu Kumari
W/o. Venkata Ramesh
Teacher, R/o. 5-1/5-17
Punyapu Sreet
Srikakulam Town & Dist.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 791 of 2013 against CC 41/2013, Dist. Forum, Srikakulam
Between:
1) The Andhra Pradesh Rajiv Swagruha
Corporation Limited
Rep. by its Managing Director
Plot No. A6, 1st Floor
Sahabhavana Township
Nagole, Bandlaguda
Hyderabad.
2) The General Manager (P)
Anamitra Project
The Andhra Pradesh Rajiv Swagruha
Corporation Limited.
S.No. 112, SM Puram Village
Etcherla Mandal
Srikakulam Dist. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
And
Kaluri Venkata Suryanarayana Murthy
S/o. Late Venkata Narsinga Rao
Senior Assistant (Finance)
APSRTC, R/o. 5-6-16
Punyapu Veedhi
Srikakulam Town & Dist. *** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 792 of 2013 against CC 45/2013, Dist. Forum, Srikakulam
Between:
1) The Andhra Pradesh Rajiv Swagruha
Corporation Limited
Rep. by its Managing Director
Plot No. A6, 1st Floor
Sahabhavana Township
Nagole, Bandlaguda
Hyderabad.
2) The General Manager (P)
Anamitra Project
The Andhra Pradesh Rajiv Swagruha
Corporation Limited.
S.No. 112, SM Puram Village
Etcherla Mandal
Srikakulam Dist. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
And
1) Madugula Ramu
S/o. Narayana Murthy
School Assistant
Z.P. High School
Murapaka, R/o. Allinagaram
Etcherla Mandal
Srikakulam Dist.
2) Baswa Govinda Rajulu
S/o. Late Satyamu
School Assistant
Govt. High School
Rajam, R/o. Rama Kovela Street
Allinagaram (V)
Etcherla Mandal
Srikakulam Dist.
*** Respondents/
Complainants.
Counsel for the Appellants: M/s. A. Naveen Kumar.
Counsel for the Respondents: M/s. A. Rama Rao
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, PRESIDENT
SRI R. LAXMI NARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
&
SRI T. ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
Oral Order: 10/02/2014.
(Per Hon’ble Justice Gopala Krishna Tamada, President)
***
1) All these appeals are filed by the Andhra Pradesh Rajiv Swagruha Corporation Ltd., represented by its Managing Director assailing the orders of the Dist. Forum, Srikakulam in the above said CCs whereby the opposite parties/appellants herein were directed to complete the construction and hand over possession of houses as early as possible and to pay rents till the date of delivery together with compensation @ Rs. 5,000/- each and costs.
2) The facts in CC 51/2013 are taken as representative case.
3) The complainants submit that attracted by the advertisement issued by the Opposite Parties they parted with their money on various dates i.e., almost entire sale consideration (except registration charges) for construction of independent houses allotted to them under ‘Anamitra’ project. They also entered into agreements of sale in the year 2009 & 2010 with a stipulation that the opposite parties shall complete the construction and hand over possession of the houses within 24 months. Despite lapse of several months, and in spite of several requests the opposite parties failed to hand over the houses as agreed upon. As they raised funds by obtaining housing loans from various banks and from private lenders they have been paying huge amounts towards EMI and interest without there being any house. That apart, they are forced to stay in rented houses for all these years by incurring heavy expenditure towards rents. There is deficiency of service on behalf of opposite parties in not handing over the houses as agreed upon within the stipulated period. Therefore they are constrained to approach the Dist. Forum for a direction to the opposite parties to complete the construction and hand over possession of the houses with all amenities as agreed upn, pay rent @ Rs. 5,000/- p.m. to each of complainant and also to pay compensation and costs.
4) The opposite parties/appellants herein filed counter admitting payment of almost entire sale consideration by all the complainants leaving a paltry sum for construction of independent houses under ‘Anamitra Project’ at Etcherla, Srikakulam. They submit that there is no whisper that the construction would be completed within 24 months but every endeavour is being made to complete the project as early as possible. Due to financial constraints and non-payment of instalments by certain customers and as the project site is located in a hillock region considerable time has been elapsed in
developing the project. An amount of Rs. 20 crores has already been invested for completion of phase-I as against receipt of Rs. 6 crores. The opposite parties are constructing the houses on self-financing scheme on ‘no loss and no gain’ basis. They were un-necessarily dragged to the Court though they are making efforts to complete the project as early as possible. The complaint is not maintainable and prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record and hearing both sides allowed the complaints in part as stated supra and the Opposite Parties challenged the said orders by filing present appeals.
6) As the point involved in these appeals is one and the same, all the appeals are being disposed of by this common order:
7) In all these appeals, the appellants are the Andhra Pradesh Rajiv Swagruha Corporation Ltd., (hereinafter called the ‘Corporation’) represented by its Managing Director and the respondents are different individuals to which the houses were allotted by the Corporation under ‘Anamitra Project’ and when the houses were not completed within the time, despite the fact that the complainants have paid almost entire sale consideration, therefore the complainants filed the complaints before the Dist. Forum and the same were allowed by the Dist. Forum with a direction to the appellants to complete the said construction at the earliest and hand over possession, and till such time the rents shall be paid to the complainants and also damages @ Rs. 5,000/- each.
8) When the matters are taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the respondents/complainants submitted that several cases were disposed of by the Dist. Forum with certain directions, against which appeals were preferred by the appellants/Opposite Parties and the said appeals were dismissed by this Commission and in that context he brought to our notice orders in FA No. 203/2013 against the orders in CC 153/2012 on the file of Dist. Forum, Srikakulam.
9) Heard. Having considered the submissions, this Commission is of the view that in all these matters a different view cannot be taken other than the view that has been taken in FA No. 203/2013 dt. 26.3.2013.
10) The learned counsel for the appellants has placed strong reliance on a judgement of Supreme Court in Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank reported in 2007 (6) SCC 711 and submitted that these cases do not stand on a different footing and are squarely covered by said judgement. We are not in agreement with the said submission. In the said judgment, time is not fixed, whereas in the cases on hand as per the terms of the agreement which was marked as Ex. A2 at clause-13 it is specifically mentioned as under:
“A.P. Housing Board/UDA’s/APIIC will be the construction agencies. Project will be completed within 24 months from the date of commencement of construction after land acquisition.
11) As stated supra in the Bangalore Development case time is not essence of the contract. In those circumstances, the Supreme Court has taken such a view but in the cases before us time is essence to the contract and 24 months is specifically fixed by the appellants to hand over possession. In those circumstances, in our considered view that the Dist. Forum has rightly observed that the respondents/complainants are entitled to the rents which they have paid on account of delay in construction by the appellants, and also to pay damages at Rs. 5,000/-. In those circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the said orders, and accordingly these appeals are dismissed. No costs.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
3) ________________________________
MEMBER
*pnr
UP LOAD – O.K.
